Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 71/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Ontario Highway 71 edit
Ontario Highway 71 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
While I was planning to wait and nominate Ontario Highway 402 as my next FAC, I've decided to nominate this article in the interim. This highway in the dense and rugged Canadian Shield was constructed in the 30s and opened up a large section of Ontario to the rest of Canada for the first time. It forms a part of the Trans-Canada Highway and would be the first article representing that route to become a Featured Article if promoted. Floydian τ ¢ 20:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 02:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Image review, spotcheck - I did all three of those at the above ACR. --Rschen7754 02:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review from Admrboltz edit
"The 194-kilometre (121 mi)" -> "The 194-kilometre-long (121 mi)" using {{convert|194|km|mi|adj=mid|-long}}"traverses the largest pocket of arable land in northern Ontario" - citation?- "Following that, the route suddenly enters the Canadian Shield," this sounds rather awkward...
In the lead you spell out US Route 53/71, but you never indicate the abbreviations next to them before using the abbreviations later.{{convert/spell}} should be used on distances under 10 miles (e.g. 6 km, 4 km, etc)"over the course of a kilometre and a half" missing a conversion). {{convert/spell}} doesn't handle fractions well, this one you may want to just hard code.- MOS:IMAGELOCATION states that images should not squish text between them. I am having this issue with the New Souix Narrows Bridge image and the Lake of the Woods image.
"obstacles during construction of the 100-kilometre (62 mi) highway," - See the trick from my first comment.Since these three sources are offline, please ensure you are not violating WP:SYNTH here "entirety of Highway 70 was renumbered as Highway 71.[18][19][20]" - Generally 3+ refs in a row indicate synthesis.- Dabs and ELs check out.
File:Ontario_71_map.svg isn't entirely useful to me. I have no clue what I am looking at really. A locator map as an inset would be very useful.
Overall the article looks quite nice, just some polishing to do. --AdmrBoltz 13:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed
- This is cited on page iv of ref#3, "Rainy River District reported over 211,000 acres of farmland from 312 farms in 2006. This represents the largest area of farmland of any District in northern Ontario and is more than double the farmland area reported by most other Districts."
- I'm not sure of a good alternative wording that represents how drastic and sudden the change is. One minute you're surrounding by farmland as far as the eye can see, then you go around a bend and down a little hill and WHAM! You're in rock'n'swamp country for the rest of the drive!
- Fixed
- Done
- Done. I've converted it as "approximately one mile", since 1.5 km = 0.93 mi, and it's a imprecise measurement in this case.
- Moved the image a bit, see if that helps.
- Fixed
- The first two are consecutive maps that show the routing before and after. Ref 20 is a press release announcing the date and route number changes that will be done, but it's hard to put into perspective without the maps. Ref 20 could stand alone for the text it refs, but this is a case where I figured a little backup never hurts.
- As for the map, I will see if I can make inkscape work for me.
- - Floydian τ ¢ 01:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The modern Highway 71 was created...- no need for first two words I think (was there an older Hwy 71?)
The original bridge remained in place until 2003, when an engineering inspection revealed that 78% of the structure had failed- "failed"? this must be some building jargon as I don't understand it in this context...as the bridge was still standing..?
- Any notable traffic issues or problems along it? Traffic heaviness or dangerous designated blackspots?
- Any previous notable accidents or issues (landslides etc.)
Not looking too bad otherwise, and above might not be possible to add if sources are lacking. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the first issue. With regards to the second, "failed" in an engineering sense means they are no longer capable of handling the engineered load and factor of safety... in other words the wood was rotten. Regarding the third and fourth, I haven't come across any info regarding incidents... the odd moose vs vehicle showdown here and there haha! - Floydian τ ¢ 04:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to look for blackspots and found nothing. will AGF on hte other, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.